In regards to resource development and more specifically the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline (NGP), after speaking with many in our community I feel most will agree with two basic statements.

1: When exporting our natural resources, we should be able to extract as many jobs as possible from that resource.

2: Any proposed project shouldn’t cause any adverse environmental damage when comparing the risks involved with the overall benefits.

Statement 1The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project doesn’t adequately address this. If accepted, this project will in fact be shipping away a good portion of jobs as well as the diluted bitumen. What is currently on the table doesn’t maximize the true value of this resource by creating the associated employment opportunities with jobs such as with refining. Citizens from distant countries will.

This is therefore “not in the best interests of Canadians”. This was one question tasked to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) by the National Energy Board (NEB) during the recent NGP hearings. It is in the best interests of some including oil companies who have relentlessly lobbied the current Federal Government and of course Enbridge. This is clearly not in the best interests of Canadians, the people our government was elected to represent.

Statement 2When cross-examined at the JRP hearings in Prince George in October 2012, Enbridge expert witness Dr. Jack Ruitenbeek admitted that the chance of a spill of any particular size was higher than 70.9%.

A more accurate study was done to put Enbridge’s submitted data into context. According to Dr. Shane Rollans, Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, Thompson Rivers University, the chance of a medium or large spill is an alarming 87% over the 50-year period of this project. There is a 60% chance of at least two and 33% of at least three medium or large spills.

This document was admitted and received as late evidence to the JRP in their consideration of this project.

Enbridge had every opportunity to dispute, challenge or cross-examine Dr. Rollans, this report and the calculations in it. They chose not to. Why? Because the calculations are accurate from the data Enbridge presented in Enbridge’s application for the NGP, to the National Energy Board.

This is all data that Enbridge submitted and the risks would certainly be much higher now than when they filed their application for this project when considering:

It’s Enbridge’s own data,This was presented without considering the extra expected LNG tanker trafficThe pipeline design allows for carrying capacity of 60-per-cent more bitumen and 40-per-cent more natural gas condensate than cited in the current proposal.

After considering the two above statements, it is obvious to me that Enbridge’s inability to maximize employment opportunities and their empty environmental assurances aren’t enough to convince me the risks outweigh the rewards. I will therefore be voting NO on April 12.

Kelly MarshKitimat

tacit agreement

Comment by ron wilton on 4th April 2014A word of caution to the people of Kitimat who vote yes in the plebisite(sp?).

Consider who requested the vote.

A yes vote removes the liability of Enbridge to clean up or compensate for damages should a leak or spill occur in your community.

By giving them your vote you are indemnifying your town to be responsible for any such calamity.

Be mindful what you are giving up if you vote yes.

thank you Ms. Marsh.

Comment by nina mussellam on 4th April 2014Thank you Ms Marsh . We here on the central coast ( powell river) are behind you 110%. Nathan Cullen came to speak to us and just this week, we've had some encouragement from a local organizer for the Dogwood Initiative. The rest of the province is listening and want you to know that you are not alone in this fight.